Bettina Stark-Watzinger, Federal Minister of Education and Research

The first day of the event was kicked off by Federal Minister Stark-Watzinger. She emphasised the goal of wanting to set up health research in Germany in the best possible way for the benefit of the people. She encouraged an open discussion on the possibility of developing and using new diagnostic, preventive or therapeutic procedures, also in the interests of Germany as a research location involved in international cooperation.

Researchers have recognised the potential of human embryo research for findings on human development and reproductive medicine through to personalised and regenerative medicine. The scientific community has been calling for a reassessment of the German framework conditions for several years now, and these now need to be scrutinised.

Stark-Watzinger emphasised the great value of freedom of research, which should only be restricted for good reason.

It is therefore time to re-examine and re-evaluate whether and according to which rules researchers in Germany are allowed to use early human embryos in vitro, embryonic stem cells and other novel cell structures. She invited the participants to discuss bold, sensible and scientifically sound recommendations for action for politics and society.

To the press release

Watch the video

Prof Dr Gerald H. Haug, President of the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina

In his welcome address, Mr Haug noted that science has advanced significantly since the Embryo Protection Act was passed over 30 years ago. In its 2021 statement, the Leopoldina advocated for a ' modern approach to handling human embryos in vitro' and outlined what this could look like. "It is one of the greatest challenges for a democratic, pluralistic society to reach compromises on highly contentious issues", said Haug. However, in the political debate, it is especially important to consider the reality of those who benefit from medical advances – particularly research on early human embryos in vitro, which is currently not allowed in Germany. This is even more relevant now, as the coalition agreement includes plans for innovations in fertility treatment, which could result in more surplus embryos. However, surplus embryos cannot currently be donated for advanced research. Instead, they must be discarded after fertility treatment unless embryo adoption – transfer to another couple wishing to have children – is an option.

Maria Leptin, President of the European Research Council

Leptin provided an overview of fundamental research in cell biology. She explained fundamental concepts, including the idea of a 'model' in biological research. She stressed the importance of researchers' drive for discovery in advancing science. Biological processes must be understood, and differences between humans and animal model organisms clarified, to develop effective treatments and therapies. Leptin illustrated this with examples from the labs of Kikuë Tachibana (Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry) and Melina Schuh (Max Planck Institute for Interdisciplinary Natural Sciences), whose research has provided insights into why egg cells age and how chromosome misdistribution occurs during cell division.

As President of the European Research Council, she reiterated that despite varying framework conditions across Europe, research benefits all European citizens.

Bettina Schöne-Seifert, Professor of Medical Ethics at the University of Münster

Schöne-Seifert outlined the medical-ethical perspectives on the conference topic. She noted that questions about embryo protection at different developmental and biological stages are crucial not only for research but also for abortion and prenatal selection. In all these contexts, ethical standards for handling embryos should be clear, consistent, and well-justified. International research focuses on embryos in the early stages of their first 14 days of development, as longer cultivation in the lab has not yet been technically possible. At this early stage, embryos are far from resembling a human or possessing any capacity for sensation or consciousness. This is even more true for recently developed research models, such as embryoids and other embryo-like structures.

According to Schöne-Seifert, the debate over the ethical acceptability of such research should not be framed as a conflict between those who take embryo protection seriously and those willing to compromise for the sake of research. Rather, proponents of research (herself included) also base their position on ethical arguments: the moral costs of a research ban for science, patients, and researchers would be too high, while arguments for protection – especially the widely cited potentiality argument – would lack broad consensus.

Finally, Schöne-Seifert presented the results of a new survey, which clearly highlights the population's diverse views on the use of human embryos in research: around 20–30% of respondents held strongly positive views on embryo protection and donation for research, while a similar percentage were strongly opposed. The medical ethicist concluded, "We need to thoroughly reconsider and openly debate all the reasons [...] [behind the existing research ban in our country]."

Claudia Wiesemann, Director of the Institute for Ethics and History of Medicine at the University of Göttingen 

Wiesemann discussed the social perspective on the conference topic and mentioned Germany’s first IVF baby, conceived through artificial insemination and born in 1982. She believes the critical discourse on potential abuse and dystopian scenarios that emerged at the time laid the foundation for the strict regulations of the Embryo Protection Act (ESchG). However, the global advancement of fertilisation technology has also expanded opportunities for basic embryological research and reproductive medicine, including cryopreservation, sperm injection (ICSI), pre-implantation diagnostics and elective single embryo transfer (eSET). This has significantly reduced infertility rates, as well as pregnancy and premature birth complications. Wiesemann noted that "alongside the rightly outlawed misuse of research, there is also highly valuable research that helps preserve life, improve human reproduction and expand knowledge of health and disease", benefiting Germany as well.

She called for a reassessment of Germany's stance on embryo research and the moral status of the embryo. The perspective of prospective parents must also be considered. The current ESchG only permits couples to cryopreserve, discard or donate surplus embryos. Wiesemann noted that many of these couples would also like the option to donate unused embryos for research.

Jochen Taupitz, Senior Professor of Civil Law, Civil Procedure Law, Private International Law and Comparative Law at the University of Mannheim 

Taupitz stated that Germany currently lacks a modern law governing reproductive medicine. The Embryo Protection Act (ESchG) of 1990, now over 30 years old, and the Stem Cell Act (StZG) of 2002 and 2008 are internally inconsistent and not well aligned with each other. Although the ESchG aims to prevent the creation and misuse of surplus embryos, it does not offer comprehensive protection. In many cases, surplus or genetically affected embryos must be left to perish or actively discarded due to a lack of alternatives. Embryos created in violation of the law must also be discarded.

The StZG, in turn, regulates the import and use of embryonic stem cells. The issue for German researchers is that the embryonic stem cell lines permitted for import no longer meet modern research standards for collection and cultivation due to Germany’s current cut-off date (1 May 2007). Additionally, current German law restricts international research collaboration.

Furthermore, recent advancements in embryo and stem cell research, such as embryoids and embryo-like cell structures, have raised the question: "What exactly is an embryo?". These developments have clearly highlighted gaps in German law. A new Reproductive Medicine Act must constitutionally consider the requirement of balancing competing interests. A proper balance must be struck between the fundamental rights to human dignity, personal development, physical integrity, and the freedom of science and research.

Kathy Niakan, Director of the Centre for Trophoblast Research at the University of Cambridge, UK

Niakan provided an overview of the scientific findings that can be achieved through research on human embryos. She outlined some of her laboratory's research questions. She is particularly interested in how the three cell types that define the embryo and placenta in the earliest embryonic stages develop from a fertilised egg. Her laboratory identified relevant transcription factors and uncovered differences between the molecular programmes of various species. By selectively activating and deactivating various factors in laboratory experiments, the researchers identified biomarkers that enhance the successful development of artificially fertilised embryos. This underscores the importance of research on human embryos. She also outlined the British regulatory framework that permits research on and with human embryos in the UK. She also outlined the UK’s regulatory framework for research on and with human embryos.  Niakan noted that she could not pursue several promising research questions and techniques with leading research groups in Germany due to legal restrictions. This includes, for example, Ellenberg’s group at EMBL. Such restrictions significantly slow scientific progress, both in Germany and in other locations that could benefit from collaboration.

Amander Clark, Director of the Center for Reproductive Science, Health and Education at the University of California, USA

Clark explanined how in vitro research on human embryos is conducted in her laboratory. She explained how she and her team establish contact with couples undergoing fertility treatment and inform them about research and the option to donate surplus embryos. She also outlined the regulatory and ethical bodies that must approve her research and how it is monitored.

A significant part of Clark’s research focuses on the development of the reproductive system and its disorders, which often lead to infertility. The knowledge she has gained will contribute to improving artificial fertilisation.

However, her laboratory also derives new human embryonic stem cell lines, which remain the gold standard in research. One of her working group’s goals is to develop an egg cell model to better understand how egg cells can be preserved as women age.

As a former president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), Clark also explained the varying regulations for different embryo models.

Jan Ellenberg, Head of the Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory EMBL in Heidelberg

Ellenberg explained that German scientists are unable to actively contribute to many research questions on human embryonic development. Neither the technologies developed in Germany nor the country's developmental biologists can be involved in projects involving embryo research. As a concrete example, he mentioned a light-sheet microscopy method developed at EMBL, which has garnered significant international interest. This microscopy technique can only be used in laboratory or farm animals, not in human embryo research, even if conducted abroad. This is because technological and methodological collaboration is prohibited in Germany even when legal and ethical standards in other countries are met.

Ellenberg emphasised that restrictions on research freedom and international collaboration not only disadvantage Germany as a business location but also set back modern medical care by years, particularly in identifying and treating genetic diseases, addressing birth defects and using embryonic cells for regenerative and personalised medicine.

He stressed that science carries a high level of responsibility and that it is essential to discuss the objectives requiring embryo research, including in Germany.

Legal scholar Bartha Knoppers outlined the legal frameworks different countries use to regulate embryo protection. She highlighted various national regulations as examples to compare them with German law. In this complex field, it is essential to consider how different cultures attribute legal and dignitary protection to the embryo. A widely supported appeal in the interdisciplinary plenary session called for amending the Embryo Protection Act with societal involvement. It is the legislator's responsibility to make sensible use of its available discretion.

Constitutional law expert Friederike Wapler outlined the legal framework that authorises legislators to shape the law. Various legal interests, such as freedom of research and embryo protection, must be carefully balanced. The broader purpose of the research could serve as a benchmark, similar to stem cell regulations.

Bartha Maria Knoppers, Director of the Centre for Genomics and Policy at McGill University in Montreal, Canada

Knoppers outlined the diverse legal approaches and administrative frameworks for managing human embryos in vitro at international, regional, and national levels. She also discussed the Council of Europe’s Bioethics Convention (Oviedo Convention). Knoppers highlighted the wide range of legal approaches in regulatory depth – for example, while Germany, Austria and Spain legally define the embryo, the UK successfully operates without such a definition.
She also highlighted the USA as a special case, where embryo research is not outright prohibited but is explicitly excluded from federal funding.

She explained that the varying regulations on human embryo research stem primarily from different historical, social and political influences. These differences influenced both the permissibility of research and the associated sanctions. Knoppers illustrated this with examples from Canada, as well as China, South Korea and several European countries.

Friederike Wapler, Professor of Philosophy of Law and Public Law at the University of Mainz 

Wapler explained that German constitutional law provides only a broad framework within which legislators are authorized to shape the law. The Basic Law cannot provide clear answers to ethically complex and socially contested questions but can only establish fundamental guidelines. In the context of human embryo research, both the constitutional status of prenatal human life and any corresponding state duty to protect it are contested, as are the legal standards for regulation.

Wapler outlined the current constitutional perspectives on the treatment of prenatal human life and highlighted the legislative flexibility available for research in this area. A key aspect is justifying the need for embryos in research to balance embryo protection with the importance of certain research objectives.

According to Wapler, the lack of clear solutions in the Basic Law is not a problem for her as a constitutional lawyer. After all, the Basic Law is designed to facilitate open democratic debate.

Feedback from the panel discussion

At the start, psychological psychotherapist Almut Dorn addressed the presenter’s question about how willing couples are to donate an embryo no longer needed for their own reproduction to science. To explore this, she conducted a small study in her practice: she asked her patients individually and received a wide range of answers – from the unimaginable, such as the fantasised child, to the obvious, with some feeling they owed their own child to research.

This impression aligned with current survey results (cf. here), which ethicist Claudia Wiesemann also referenced, indicating that the question of embryo donation for research purposes is not universally rejected today, but is viewed in a highly nuanced way. She suspects that "if it were clearer to the public that we might be protecting the embryo better than a more developed foetus during pregnancy, we could likely achieve even higher approval ratings for research at this very early stage." It is important to recognise that the purpose of the research is not "speculative futurology", but has already led to real improvements in foetal survival.

Philosopher and medical ethicist Markus Rothhaar responded to the criticism of the Embryo Protection Act by stating that, in his opinion, the law had successfully achieved an important goal: keeping artificial fertilisation as close as possible to natural fertilisation and minimising the number of surplus embryos. Once there are surplus embryos no longer needed for in vitro fertilisation, one faces the serious ethical dilemma of either preserving them indefinitely or destroying them. This is because using them for research purposes also involves their destruction. From this, the Embryo Protection Act rightly concluded that the creation of surplus embryos should be minimised as much as possible, if not completely prevented by law.

Chair of the German Ethics Council (DER), Alena Buyx, referred to a decision tree that the Ethics Council had drawn up as part of its 2019 statement on germline interventions. Accordingly, "If embryo research is needed to develop answers, not only is it permissible, but necessary", says Buyx. The diversity of opinions in the country was also reflected within the Ethics Council, and not everyone fully agreed with the DER’s recommendation. However, the best way to handle such differences was to make them transparent. 

Political scientist Ullrich Willems confirmed that such complex conflicts are difficult to resolve through majority decisions. Willems explained that a challenge for various commissions is that they reflect the dissent and diversity of opinions within the population. On some issues, however, finding a middle ground is difficult. It is far more important to acknowledge minority opinions inclusively and engage with them on equal terms. Regarding embryo research, the goal is not "to be right on the merits, but to ensure forms of social coexistence that are reasonably acceptable to everyone while reducing the conflict's intensity and potential for escalation", said Willems. The social sciences can contribute to finding solutions.

But what type of research should be considered in this discussion? According to molecular biologist Jan Ellenberg, the significance of a research goal must be judged by its ultimate contribution to society. However, he cautioned that limiting research to direct medical applications would be too short-sighted. For many diseases, understanding the underlying (e.g., genetic) basis and mechanisms is the first priority. Therefore, basic research should not be overlooked in discussions on high-level research.

Several speakers on the panel viewed the lack of open debate in Germany in recent years as a problem. Science can hardly speak freely, as this research is explicitly prohibited under criminal law, while the affected decision-makers and in vitro fertilisation patients are stigmatised and marginalised. According to Wiesemann, however, the discussion should take place publicly. In light of this, Dorn added that patients with acute problems often overestimate current medical capabilities and cannot always be helped as comprehensively as they hope. It is therefore entirely understandable that this creates a desire to support research in some way.

When asked whether learning indirectly from other countries' progress was enough, Ellenberg noted, “We always adopt it five to ten years later based on knowledge gained abroad.” As a nation of science and technology, we cannot settle for this.

Ellenberg and Dorn agreed that people seek help wherever it is available. One example is hereditary diseases treatable with mitochondrial replacement therapy, which is permitted in the UK but not in Germany. The lively discussion, with contributions from many participants, highlighted ongoing controversies over human dignity and embryo protection that remained unresolved. However, there was a broader consensus that Germany acting as a moral free rider did not align with the panellists' desired image. There was also broad agreement and confidence in the need to further stimulate social discourse, as recent discussions have shown how social compromises can be successfully reached.

Christine Mummery, Professor of Developmental Biology and Head of the Institute for Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSC) at Leiden University Medical Centre, the Netherlands

Mummery provided an overview of stem cells, their types and their applications. She outlined the three types of stem cells, each with varying developmental potential. This ranges from the limited developmental potential of adult stem cells to pluripotent embryonic stem cells, which can differentiate into any cell type in the body.

Despite their limited developmental potential, adult stem cells offer valuable applications in specific areas. For example, in cystic fibrosis, laboratory tests using adult stem cells can help identify which medication a patient will respond to best. Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and embryonic stem cells (ES) differ significantly in both their derivation and their clinical applications. For example, the two cell types differ in terms of patient safety. This is because iPSCs are derived from somatic cells, which are genetically older than ES cells and may have accumulated more genetic mutations. This, in turn, increases the risk of tumour formation. Many iPSCs are also protected by patents.

In addition to cell lines, Mummery explained the concept of artificial germ cells and organoids, particularly brain organoids, which are typically derived from adult organ cells and embryonic stem cells.

Fredrik Lanner, head of the "Pluripotency, Embryonic Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine" group at the Karolinska Institute, Sweden

Lanner outlined his research over the past decade. One of his scientific goals is to develop a stem cell-based therapy for dry age-related macular degeneration. This form of the disease is currently untreatable and causes severe vision loss in affected individuals. In his application-oriented research, obtaining a stem cell line produced under clinical conditions was essential for its use in clinical trials and potential future therapies. Lanner reported that after years of work, his team successfully derived this cell line from surplus human embryos and is now testing it in animal experiments. These laboratory experiments were successful, and in collaboration with an industry partner, the next stage of drug development began with preclinical study packages. A clinical trial is now being launched. He demonstrated how human embryonic stem cells could enable a highly specific treatment and potential cure, while also highlighting the lengthy development process and the recurring challenges researchers face.

At the same time, Lanner noted that older stem cell lines are often unsuitable for developing cell products or therapeutics, as they no longer meet current medical guidelines, such as specific cultivation media and additives.

Hans R. Schöler, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine and member of the Central Ethics Committee for Stem Cell Research (ZES)

Schöler outlined the role and perspective of the Central Ethics Committee for Stem Cell Research (ZES).

On behalf of the Robert Koch Institute, the interdisciplinary commission evaluates the ethical justifiability of scientific projects under the Stem Cell Act (StZG) based on defined criteria: the high relevance of the research objective, prior validation in animal models, and the absence of alternatives to using human stem cells. Given recent advances, the ZES advocates expanding the definition of high-level research objectives beyond basic research to include the application of research findings. The pre-clarification requirement should not be limited to experiments with animal cells or models but should also include other pre-clarifications, such as those using human cells. Additionally, the ZES is considering whether to eliminate the cut-off date regulation and the research proviso without replacement. The use of human stem cells should also be permitted for medical applications and therapeutic development, requiring the removal of research restrictions.

In particular, the criminal penalties for violations of the Stem Cell Act (StZG) should be reassessed. In the context of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and their potential use in transplants, the impact of genetic and epigenetic mutations, as well as cell age, must be considered, as mutations are expected to accumulate over time.

Antonio Autiero, Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology at the Faculty of Catholic Theology at the University of Münster

Autiero noted that the debate on stem cell research often served as a platform for discussing the moral status of the human embryo, which significantly polarised the discussion. He therefore advocated for a constructive approach to consensus-building within a pluralistic society in the interest of the common good. Regarding the moral status of the embryo, the theologian urged the development of new ways of thinking and the inclusion of diverse opinions and worldviews to enable a meaningful discussion on handling surplus embryos. He advocated for an action-oriented, responsible reassignment of surplus embryos, framing them as an opportunity to contribute to research and benefit humanity. Finally, he called for "daring to shift from a static, defensive approach to an evolutionary, dynamic and holistic understanding of life protection".

May Evers, patient representative Hilde Ulrichs Foundation for Parkinson’s Research 

May Evers a Parkinson’s patient herself, described the daily challenges faced by those with the disease and the potential benefits of new stem cell-based therapies. For those affected, there is great hope that these new treatment methods could offer not only treatment but possibly a cure. Stem cell-based therapies for Parkinson’s disease are already being developed and tested in other countries. Evers stressed that patients in Germany should also have access to the best possible treatment. From the perspective of those affected, it is difficult to understand why stem cell-based therapy and research are currently not possible in Germany due to legal restrictions.   

Mats Hansson, Professor of Biomedical Ethics and founder of the Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics at Uppsala University, Sweden

Hansson outlined  the perspectives of patients and the general public in Sweden on using human embryonic stem cells for medical purposes. He described a shift in moral and social attitudes towards the use of human stem cells, moving from general rejection to a more nuanced consideration of the benefits and risks. Hansson presented a study in which a representative survey of the Swedish public was used to analyse what would be considered an acceptable use of human embryonic stem cells. He showed that there is broad acceptance for using surplus embryos for a beneficial medical purpose, but emphasised that both the embryos and their donors should be treated with respect.
He believed the situation could be similar in other countries if citizens were surveyed and given a choice.
Hansson concluded by sharing that human embryonic stem cells are now being used in preliminary studies in Sweden for Parkinson's disease treatment.

Hans-Georg Dederer, Professor of Constitutional and Administrative Law, Public International Law, European and International Business Law at the University of Passau

Dederer explained the legal framework governing research with embryonic stem cells in Germany, as outlined in the Embryo Protection Act and the Stem Cell Act. Under current legislation, the generation, import and use of human embryonic stem cells for research purposes are prohibited. Stem cell lines created before 1 May 2007, may only be imported and used in Germany under specific conditions, with approval from the Robert Koch Institute and a prior opinion from the Central Ethics Commission for Stem Cell Research (ZES). Dederer also highlighted the legal weaknesses and challenges arising from the current situation. These included the definitions of embryos and germline cells, restrictions on using stem cells for therapeutic purposes and the management of surplus embryos.

Bettina Schöne-Seifert, Professor of Medical Ethics at the University of Münster 

Schöne-Seifert explained the various ethical reasons why a re-evaluation of embryo research in Germany should be considered. In particular, a clear definition of the term "embryo" is needed to distinguish embryo models from natural embryos, considering scientific advancements and to differentiate their protection needs.

Research in both natural embryos and embryo models are independent tools that complement each other, depending on the research question. She also emphasized that the terminology must be chosen carefully to avoid provoking distorted perceptions. This is because today's embryo models are far from becoming viable, despite what early press articles on synthetic embryos suggested.

Peter Dabrock, Professor of Systematic Theology (Ethics) at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg

Dabrock concluded the presentations and discussions from various disciplines with an appeal: “We are responsible for what we do, but also for what we fail to do, even when we know better".

The different perspectives have highlighted that new points of discussion are emerging, especially due to the rapid progress in scientific developments. On the other hand, this should also be seen as a challenge to prevent the potential for conflict from growing, despite the complexity of the issue.

We would need to consider how a compromise could be reached in light of the discussion, taking into account factual, social, spatial and temporal dimensions. Above all, this should be seen as a mutual learning process, aimed at achieving the greatest possible consensus. In this context, he also called for greater participation and public engagement in science to connect with the core of society and make full use of the scope allowed by constitutional law.